Griffith student places second in state with doc on disability rights activist
'I was so proud of myself and everyone that helped me with it,' Natalie Wadkins, a junior at Griffith High School, said. 'I hope people take away that inclusion starts with them.'
In the 10-minute documentary, Wadkins highlights the work of Kitty Cone, who was born with muscular dystrophy, and her fight for federal approval of Section 504 part of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, which stated that any program receiving federal funding couldn't exclude or discriminate against people with disabilities, Wadkins said.
The law wasn't enforced for four years, Wadkins said, which sparked anger and frustration among people with disabilities, Wadkins said. So, Cone and other activists organized a sit-in at the San Francisco Federal Building, she said.
The 504 sit-in began April 5, 1977, and the activists remained in the building for nearly a month, making it the longest sit-in inside a federal building in U.S. history, Wadkins said.
Cone was a key component of the sit-in, Wadkins said, as she organized resources, like beds and first-aid, and connected with members of other organizations, like the Black Panthers, to grow the movement for the sit-in and disability rights.
Ultimately, on April 28, 1977, the government implemented Section 504, Wadkins said. But, activists like Cone continued to push for expanded rights for people with disabilities, like the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, she said.
After the sit-in, Cone went on to advocate for better accessibility, work protections and representation for people with disabilities, Wadkins said.
Wadkins, who is the vice president of Griffith High School's Best Buddies program, said she chose to research the 504 sit-in because the topic of disability rights is important to her. As a member of Best Buddies, Wadkins said she spends time with students with intellectual disabilities.
'I see the barriers that they face,' Wadkins said. 'Best Buddies has shown me how important inclusion and advocacy are in real life, just every day. It's made me want to highlight the leaders that made their lives better.'
Wadkins worked on the documentary for National History Day as part of her Advanced Placement U.S. History class. Wadkins began researching the 504 sit-in by reading books and articles, and listening to first-hand accounts of the sit-in, she said.
Then, she wrote the script for the documentary and began gathering historical photos, video and audio clips, Wadkins said. As she edited the documentary together, Wadkins said she focused on pacing, emotional impact and accuracy.
The National History Day competition begins at the district level, Wadkins said, and four students advance to the state level. Wadkins said four students submitted entries for the district level, so they all advanced to state.
At the state level, Wadkins said her documentary was up against eight other documentaries. The judges had to choose four documentaries to advance to the final round, she said.
When her documentary ended, Wadkins said one of the three judges sat back and said, 'wow.' They told her they liked how she put closed captions in the documentary, which provided accessibility for the hearing impaired.
'They said they enjoyed that I practice what I preach,' Wadkins said. 'They were really inspired by my passion and drive to this topic.'
By placing second at the state level, Wadkins advanced to the national competition. Wadkins said she and another student from Indiana will go to the University of Maryland in June to compete.
Griffith Public Schools Superintendent Leah Dumezich applauded Wadkins' accomplishment.
'Natalie is an example of a student who achieves in the classroom and out of the classroom,' Dumezich said in an email. 'She has demonstrated integrity, self-discipline, and genuine leadership qualities. We are very proud of her and wish her the best of luck.'
Julie Larson, an English and Language Arts teacher at Griffith High School, said she helped Wadkins with editing the documentary. Larson said Wadkins found a topic that's 'really unique to talk about.'
'You can tell that there's passion there for her topic,' Larson said. 'I'm just thrilled for her.'
At the national competition, Wadkins and thousands of other students will present their projects in various categories over the course of preliminary and final rounds.
Wadkins said she's excited to advance to the national level, and she hopes her documentary will have an even greater impact at that level of the competition.
'I'm really excited. I'm grateful,' Wadkins said. 'Even if I don't win, I just want to educate more people on the topic.'
akukulka@post-trib.com
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
12-06-2025
- Yahoo
Supreme Court Unanimously Sides With Disabled Student in Lawsuit vs. District
In a unanimous opinion delivered by Chief Justice John Roberts, the U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday sided with the family of Ava Tharpe, a teen with a rare form of epilepsy whose suburban Minneapolis district denied her request for a modified school day. The decision, A.J.T. vs. Osseo Area Schools, means K-12 students do not have to meet a higher standard of proof than others suing under the Americans with Disabilities Act. If the justices had agreed with the district's longstanding argument, children with disabilities would have had to prove their school system intentionally acted in bad faith in denying them in-school accommodations. In 'friend of the court' briefs, numerous advocacy groups had warned that holding special education students to a different — and extraordinarily strict — definition of discrimination would have made it virtually impossible for families to assert their rights. Get stories like this delivered straight to your inbox. Sign up for The 74 Newsletter The court agreed, saying everyone who files suit under the ADA should have to meet the same standard of 'deliberate indifference,' or disregard for an individual's need for accommodations. 'That our decision is narrow does not diminish its import for A.J.T. and 'a great many children with disabilities and their parents,' ' Roberts wrote, citing language from a lower court decision. 'Together they face daunting challenges on a daily basis. We hold today that those challenges do not include having to satisfy a more stringent standard of proof than other plaintiffs to establish discrimination under Title II of the ADA and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act.' In a concurring opinion, Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson elaborated, citing examples of discrimination that, intent notwithstanding, must still be addressed. 'Stairs may prevent a wheelchair-bound person from accessing a public space,' Sotomayor wrote. 'The lack of auxiliary aids may prevent a dead person from accessing medical treatment at a public hospital; and braille-free ballots may preclude a blind person from voting, all without animus on the part of the city planner, the hospital staff or the ballot designer.' Related 'Today's decision is a great win for Ava, and for children with disabilities facing discrimination in schools across the country,' said Roman Martinez, a lead attorney on the case. 'This outcome gets the law exactly right, and it will help protect the reasonable accommodations needed to ensure equal opportunity for all.' In a statement to The 74, a district spokesperson said the high court 'declined to decide what the particular intent standard is for such claims,' noting that 'the case will now return to the trial court for next steps consistent with the court's ruling.' In 2015, when Ava was in fourth grade, her family moved from Kentucky to Minnesota. Because her severe form of epilepsy causes frequent seizures during the morning, she had been allowed to attend school in the afternoon and early evening. Initially, the Osseo district agreed to a modified schedule, but reneged after the family moved, saying it was unwilling to provide services outside the normal school day. The state administrative law judge who heard the family's initial complaint called the district's arguments 'pretextual,' saying it was more concerned with 'the need to safeguard the ordinary end-of-the-workday departure times for its faculty and staff' than with outside evaluators' assessments of Ava's needs. As the case made its way to the Supreme Court, the district had consistently argued Ava had to prove the school system acted out of ill intent — a standard that would have applied only to K-12 students. But in the brief it submitted before oral arguments, Osseo widened its argument, saying that a showing of bad faith is required in all ADA cases, not just those involving schools. The April 28 hearing erupted in rare verbal fireworks when Justice Neil Gorsuch took exception to a statement by the district's attorney that lawyers for the U.S. Department of Justice, who sided with the family, were 'lying' when they said the district had changed its argument. Justice Amy Coney Barrett characterized the district's shift as 'a pretty big sea change,' while Jackson questioned whether the district was saying the ADA does not necessarily require accommodations for people with disabilities. In their concurring opinion, Sotomayor and Jackson noted that when they wrote the act, lawmakers addressed the question at the heart of the case head-on: 'Congress was not naïve to the insidious nature of disability discrimination when it enacted the ADA and Rehabilitation Act. It understood full well that discrimination against those with disabilities derives principally from 'apathetic attitudes rather than affirmative animus.' ' The decision comes at a time when disability protections have come under fire from the second Trump administration and a number of Republican governors. In October, motivated by new rules that said gender dysphoria could be considered a disability, 17 states sued the federal government. Gender dysphoria is the clinical term for distress caused when a person's gender does not match their sex assigned at birth. That suit, Texas vs. Kennedy, originally sought to have Section 504, the portion of the ADA that outlaws in-school discrimination, declared unconstitutional. The states have since dropped that demand from the suit but are still asking courts to overturn rules prohibiting discrimination in a wide array of public settings. Whether the states will continue to press the new, broader case in the face of Thursday's decision remains to be seen. For their part, disability advocates were quick to celebrate. The district's position was 'flatly inconsistent with the law and would have stripped millions of people with disabilities of the protections Congress put in place to prevent systemic discrimination,' said Shira Wakschlag, senior executive officer of legal advocacy and general counsel for The Arc of the United States, which submitted a brief on the issues. 'The very foundation of disability civil rights was on the line.'
Yahoo
12-06-2025
- Yahoo
Trump tried — and failed — to cancel a student history competition
This week, thousands of students traveled to the University of Maryland for the annual National History Day contest. However, this year's competition celebrating America's history almost didn't happen after the Trump administration abruptly gutted the organizing nonprofit's funding in April. For more than 50 years, students at middle and high schools across the country attempt to qualify for the competition by submitting a historical research project based on that year's theme. Students can write papers, prepare exhibits or performances, produce documentaries or create a website. After qualifying at the local and state levels, contestants are invited to take part in the national competition in College Park, Maryland. But in April, the event was put in jeopardy after the Department of Government Efficiency terminated more than 1,000 National Endowment for the Humanities grants, including money for National History Day. The organization received termination letters for its four-year grant totaling $650,000, USA Today reported. Without the government's assistance and the competition just weeks away, the executive director of National History Day turned to social media. 'We need your help,' Cathy Gorn said in a video posted to Instagram in early April. 'We need to raise in the next few months about $132,000 to make History Day happen in June.' Gorn's public plea worked: NHD raised the money it needed, and about 3,000 students were able to present their projects on this year's timely theme, 'Rights and Responsibilities in History.' 'They are very in tune to what's happening in the world, and they're concerned, and they want to know more,' Gorn told USA Today. 'And they're drawn naturally to topics of fairness. So you'll see a lot of civil rights, human rights, justice-type of topics here, but that's so natural for a young person to kind of gravitate in that direction.' While this year's competition survived, the future of National History Day remains uncertain. 'Everybody is here, but I don't know what next year is going to look like,' Gorn told USA Today. 'It'll be a horrible, horrible shame for kids and teachers not to be able to participate.' Even though the fate of the 2026 competition is up in the air, NHD has selected its theme: 'Revolution, Reaction, Reform in History.' This article was originally published on
USA Today
12-06-2025
- USA Today
Supreme Court sides with teen with epilepsy in disability discrimination case
Supreme Court sides with teen with epilepsy in disability discrimination case At issue: a student was receiving only about 4 hours of instruction a day, less than her nondisabled peers, because of a lack of accommodation for her disability. Show Caption Hide Caption Supreme Court hears arguments on judges' block on Trump birthright EO The justices heard arguments on whether its ok for judges to universally block President Donald Trump's birthright citizenship executive order. WASHINGTON − The Supreme Court on June 12 unanimously sided with a disabled student trying to sue her school for not doing enough to accommodate her rare form of epilepsy, a decision that could make it easier for families to seek damages under the Americans with Disabilities Act. The justices said a lower court used the wrong standard when rejecting the discrimination lawsuit. The case, A.J.T. v. Osseo Area Schools, was being closely watched by disability rights groups who say the courts have created a 'nearly insurmountable barrier' for help sought by schoolchildren and their families. But school officials across the country worry that making lawsuits easier to win will create a more adversarial relationship between parents and schools in the difficult negotiations needed to balance a student's needs with a school's limited resources. Seizures prevent attending school before noon In this case, Gina and Aaron Tharpe said they spent years asking Osseo Area School District to accommodate their daughter's severe cognitive impairment and rare form of epilepsy called Lennox-Gastaut Syndrome. Her seizures are so frequent in the morning that she can't attend school before noon. A previous school in Tennessee shifted Ava's school day so it started in the afternoon and ended with evening instruction at home. But the Tharpes say her Minnesota school system, where she is currently enrolled, refused to provide the same adjustment. As a result, she received only 4.25 hours of instruction a day, about two-thirds of what nondisabled students received. Judge says school didn't do enough A local judge said in 2021 the school district's top concern hadn't been Ava's needs; instead, they were concerned with a desire to keep employees from having to work past the traditional end of the school day. The district was required to provide more instruction under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. But while a federal judge backed that decision, the court said the Tharpes couldn't also use the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 to seek compensatory damages and court order to permanently set the hours of instruction. Section 504 is the law that started school-based ''504 plans'', a central tool for providing accommodations to students with disabilities. More: For students with disabilities, what's the difference between IEPs and 504 plans? The St. Louis-based 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals likewise said their hands were tied because of a 1982 circuit decision – Monahan v. Nebraska − that said school officials need to have acted with 'bad faith or gross misjudgment' for suits involving educational services for children with disabilities. The Tharpes 'may have established a genuine dispute about whether the district was negligent or even deliberately indifferent, but under Monahan, that's just not enough,' the appeals court said. More: Will a Texas-led legal fight over gender dysphoria threaten disabled student protections? School said there was no intentional discrimination Hundreds of district court decisions across the country have been litigated under that standard, with most of them ending in a loss for the families, according to Tharpes' attorneys. Those courts were unfairly using a tougher standard than 'deliberate indifference,' which is the bar for damages in disability discrimination cases based on educational services, their attorneys argued − with the support of the Justice Department. Attorneys for the school district argued the ADA and the Rehabilitation Act prohibit only intentional discrimination, which is not what happened here. They also say the school did not show 'deliberate indifference.' Although the school declined to provide after-school support at Ava's home, officials said they offered other measures to accommodate her needs while 'effectively utilizing scarce resources shared among all students, including others with disabilities.' The court's decision revives, but does not settle, the Tharpe's lawsuit.
